Methods of determining corrections for a patterning process, device manufacturing method, control system for a lithographic apparatus and lithographic apparatus

ABSTRACT

A method of determining a correction for a process parameter related to a lithographic process, wherein the lithographic process includes a plurality of runs during each one of which a pattern is applied to one or more substrates. The method of determining includes obtaining pre-exposure metrology data describing a property of a substrate; obtaining post-exposure metrology data comprising one or more measurements of the process parameter having been performed on one or more previously exposed substrates; assigning, based on the pre-exposure metrology data, a group membership status from one or more groups to the substrate; and determining the correction for the process parameter based on the group membership status and the post-exposure metrology data.

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.16/335,277, filed Mar. 21, 2019, which is the U.S. national phase entryof PCT patent application no. PCT/EP2017/074643, filed on Sep. 28, 2017,which claims the benefit of priority of European patent application no.16195047.2, filed on Oct. 21, 2016, of European patent application no.17150658.7, filed on Jan. 9, 2017, of European patent application no.17154129.5, filed on Feb. 1, 2017, and of European patent applicationno. 17187411.8, filed on Aug. 23, 2017, each of the foregoingapplications is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.

FIELD

The present description relates to control apparatus and control methodsusable, for example, to maintain performance in the manufacture ofdevices by patterning processes such as lithography. The inventionfurther relates to methods of manufacturing devices using lithographictechniques. The invention yet further relates to computer programproducts for use in implementing such methods.

BACKGROUND

A lithographic process is one in which a lithographic apparatus appliesa desired pattern onto a substrate, usually onto a target portion of thesubstrate, after which various processing chemical and/or physicalprocessing steps work through the pattern to create functional featuresof a complex product. The accurate placement of patterns on thesubstrate is a chief challenge for reducing the size of circuitcomponents and other products that may be produced by lithography. Inparticular, the challenge of measuring accurately the features on asubstrate which have already been laid down is a critical step in beingable to position successive layers of features in superpositionaccurately enough to produce working devices with a high yield.So-called overlay should, in general, be achieved within a few tens ofnanometers in today's sub-micron semiconductor devices, down to a fewnanometers in the most critical layers.

Consequently, modern lithography apparatuses involve extensivemeasurement or ‘mapping’ operations prior to the step of actuallyexposing or otherwise patterning the substrate at a target location.So-called advanced alignment models have been and continue to bedeveloped to model and correct more accurately non-linear distortions ofthe wafer ‘grid’ that are caused by processing steps and/or by thelithographic apparatus itself. Not all distortions are correctable,however, and it remains important to trace and eliminate as many causesof such distortions as possible.

Modern lithographic process and products are so complex that issues dueto processing are difficult to trace back to the root cause. Overlay andalignment residuals typically show patterns over the wafer (of theprocess and/or litho tool). This may be interpreted as a non-correctablequantity with respect to a predefined model, while visual inspection anddetailed analysis of the fingerprint may give an indication of causesand correction strategies. The spatial pattern in the fingerprint is notused to quantify the fingerprint, nor the observation that multiplecauses may show up simultaneously in the apparent fingerprint. Overlaymeasurements are not generally available for each individual wafer, andthe relation to the processing history and context is not generallyknown or used. Furthermore, it is difficult and time-consuming to make alist of all possible sources of spatial variation for the machine andprocess at hand.

Aside from the problem of identifying causes of processing errors,process performance monitoring systems have been implemented which allowmeasurement of performance parameters to be made from processedproducts, which then are used to calculate corrections for use inprocessing subsequent products. A limitation with current performancemonitoring systems is that there is a compromise between the amount oftime and equipment dedicated to performance monitoring, and the speedand accuracy with which corrections can be implemented. In a“run-to-run” control strategy historic performance measurements are fedback to calculate new process corrections using (e.g., in-line)metrology performed between and/or during “runs”, which may comprise oneor more lots. In previous run-to-run control strategies, each runcomprised a “lot” of, typically 25 substrates. Improved lithographicapparatus hardware has enabled wafer level control, whereby a run maycomprise a single substrate. However, performing a full overlaymeasurement on each substrate to take advantage of such wafer levelcontrol would be prohibitive in term of time and throughput.

SUMMARY

Embodiments of the present invention aim to improve systems for controlof performance in parameters such as overlay in lithographic processes.Embodiments aim to enable optimization of run-to run control strategiesduring high-volume manufacture.

According to an aspect, there is provided a method of determining acorrection for a process parameter related to a lithographic process ona substrate, the lithographic process comprising a plurality of runsduring each one of which a pattern is applied to one or more substrates,the method comprising: obtaining pre-exposure parameter data relating toa property of the substrate; obtaining post-exposure metrology datacomprising one or more measurements of the process parameter having beenperformed by an equivalent lithographic process on one or morepreviously exposed substrates of the lithographic process; assigning tothe substrate, a group membership status from one or more groups, basedon the pre-exposure parameter data; and determining the correction forthe process parameter based on the group membership status and thepost-exposure metrology data.

In an aspect, there is provided a method of manufacturing deviceswherein device features are formed on a series of substrates by apatterning process, wherein corrections for a process parameter of thepatterning process are determined by performing a method as describedherein.

In an aspect, there is provided a control system for a lithographicapparatus, the control system comprising: storage for receivingpre-exposure parameter data relating to a property of a substrate andpost-exposure metrology data comprising one or more measurements of theprocess parameter having been performed on one or more previoussubstrates; and a processor operable to: assign to the substrate, agroup membership status from one or more groups, based on thepre-exposure parameter data; and determine a correction for a processparameter based on the group membership status and the post-exposuremetrology data.

In an aspect, there is provided a lithographic apparatus including acontrol system as described herein.

In an aspect, there is provided a method of dynamically updating one ormore groups and/or corrections for a process parameter related to alithographic process on a substrate, wherein a correction out of aplurality of corrections is applied to the process parameter for eachsubstrate based on a group membership status assigned to that substratethe method comprising: obtaining post-exposure metrology data describinga performance parameter of the substrate; and dynamically updating theone or more of the groups and/or plurality of corrections based on thepost-exposure metrology data.

In an aspect, there is provided a computer program product containingone or more sequences of machine-readable instructions for implementingcalculating steps in a method as described herein.

These and other aspects and advantages of the apparatus and methodsdisclosed herein will be appreciated from a consideration of thefollowing description and drawings of exemplary embodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of exampleonly, with reference to the accompanying schematic drawings in whichcorresponding reference symbols indicate corresponding parts, and inwhich:

FIG. 1 depicts a lithographic apparatus suitable for use in anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 depicts a lithographic cell or cluster in which an inspectionapparatus according to an embodiment may be used;

FIG. 3 illustrates schematically measurement and exposure processes inthe apparatus of FIG. 1, according to known practice;

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an advanced process control method forcontrolling the apparatus of FIG. 1 according to known practice;

FIG. 5 is a flowchart describing an initial set-up phase according to anembodiment of the invention;

FIG. 6 is a plot of the score attributed to each substrate of a lot withrespect to a first eigenwafer fingerprint;

FIG. 7 is a graph, for an eigenwafer, of the score attributed tomeasured overlay fingerprints (y-axis) against measured alignmentfingerprints (x-axis) for a lot of (25) substrates, where each pointrepresents a different substrate;

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram conceptually illustrating a method according toan embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 9 conceptually illustrates exemplary substrate grouping ofpre-exposure metrology data and post-exposure metrology data; and

FIG. 10 is a flow diagram conceptually illustrating a method accordingto an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Before describing embodiments of the invention in detail, it isinstructive to present an example environment in which embodiments ofthe present invention may be implemented.

FIG. 1 schematically depicts a lithographic apparatus LA. The apparatusincludes an illumination system (illuminator) IL configured to conditiona radiation beam B (e.g., UV radiation or DUV radiation), a patterningdevice support or support structure (e.g., a mask table) MT constructedto support a patterning device (e.g., a mask) MA and connected to afirst positioner PM configured to accurately position the patterningdevice in accordance with certain parameters; two substrate tables(e.g., a wafer table) WTa and WTb each constructed to hold a substrate(e.g., a resist coated wafer) W and each connected to a secondpositioner PW configured to accurately position the substrate inaccordance with certain parameters; and a projection system (e.g., arefractive projection lens system) PS configured to project a patternimparted to the radiation beam B by patterning device MA onto a targetportion C (e.g., including one or more dies) of the substrate W. Areference frame RF connects the various components, and serves as areference for setting and measuring positions of the patterning deviceand substrate and of features on them.

The illumination system may include various types of optical components,such as refractive, reflective, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostaticor other types of optical components, or any combination thereof, fordirecting, shaping, or controlling radiation. For example, in anapparatus using extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, reflective opticalcomponents will normally be used.

The patterning device support holds the patterning device in a mannerthat depends on the orientation of the patterning device, the design ofthe lithographic apparatus, and other conditions, such as for examplewhether or not the patterning device is held in a vacuum environment.The patterning device support can use mechanical, vacuum, electrostaticor other clamping techniques to hold the patterning device. Thepatterning device support MT may be a frame or a table, for example,which may be fixed or movable as required. The patterning device supportmay ensure that the patterning device is at a desired position, forexample with respect to the projection system.

The term “patterning device” used herein should be broadly interpretedas referring to any device that can be used to impart a radiation beamwith a pattern in its cross-section such as to create a pattern in atarget portion of the substrate. It should be noted that the patternimparted to the radiation beam may not exactly correspond to the desiredpattern in the target portion of the substrate, for example if thepattern includes phase-shifting features or so called assist features.Generally, the pattern imparted to the radiation beam will correspond toa particular functional layer in a device being created in the targetportion, such as an integrated circuit.

As here depicted, the apparatus is of a transmissive type (e.g.,employing a transmissive patterning device). Alternatively, theapparatus may be of a reflective type (e.g., employing a programmablemirror array of a type as referred to above, or employing a reflectivemask). Examples of patterning devices include masks, programmable mirrorarrays, and programmable LCD panels. Any use of the terms “reticle” or“mask” herein may be considered synonymous with the more general term“patterning device.” The term “patterning device” can also beinterpreted as referring to a device storing in digital form patterninformation for use in controlling such a programmable patterningdevice.

The term “projection system” used herein should be broadly interpretedas encompassing any type of projection system, including refractive,reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic and electrostaticoptical systems, or any combination thereof, as appropriate for theexposure radiation being used, or for other factors such as the use ofan immersion liquid or the use of a vacuum. Any use of the term“projection lens” herein may be considered as synonymous with the moregeneral term “projection system”.

The lithographic apparatus may also be of a type wherein at least aportion of the substrate may be covered by a liquid having a relativelyhigh refractive index, e.g., water, so as to fill a space between theprojection system and the substrate. An immersion liquid may also beapplied to other spaces in the lithographic apparatus, for example,between the mask and the projection system. Immersion techniques arewell known in the art for increasing the numerical aperture ofprojection systems.

In operation, the illuminator IL receives a radiation beam from aradiation source SO. The source and the lithographic apparatus may beseparate entities, for example when the source is an excimer laser. Insuch cases, the source is not considered to form part of thelithographic apparatus and the radiation beam is passed from the sourceSO to the illuminator IL with the aid of a beam delivery system BDincluding, for example, suitable directing mirrors and/or a beamexpander. In other cases the source may be an integral part of thelithographic apparatus, for example when the source is a mercury lamp.The source SO and the illuminator IL, together with the beam deliverysystem BD if required, may be referred to as a radiation system.

The illuminator IL may for example include an adjuster AD for adjustingthe angular intensity distribution of the radiation beam, an integratorIN and a condenser CO. The illuminator may be used to condition theradiation beam, to have a desired uniformity and intensity distributionin its cross section.

The radiation beam B is incident on the patterning device MA, which isheld on the patterning device support MT, and is patterned by thepatterning device. Having traversed the patterning device (e.g., mask)MA, the radiation beam B passes through the projection system PS, whichfocuses the beam onto a target portion C of the substrate W. With theaid of the second positioner PW and position sensor IF (e.g., aninterferometric device, linear encoder, 2-D encoder or capacitivesensor), the substrate table WTa or WTb can be moved accurately, e.g.,so as to position different target portions C in the path of theradiation beam B. Similarly, the first positioner PM and anotherposition sensor (which is not explicitly depicted in FIG. 1) can be usedto accurately position the patterning device (e.g., mask) MA withrespect to the path of the radiation beam B, e.g., after mechanicalretrieval from a mask library, or during a scan.

Patterning device (e.g., mask) MA and substrate W may be aligned usingmask alignment marks M1, M2 and substrate alignment marks P1, P2.Although the substrate alignment marks as illustrated occupy dedicatedtarget portions, they may be located in spaces between target portions(these are known as scribe-lane alignment marks). Similarly, insituations in which more than one die is provided on the patterningdevice (e.g., mask) MA, the mask alignment marks may be located betweenthe dies. Small alignment marks may also be included within dies, inamongst the device features, in which case it is desirable that themarkers be as small as possible and it is desirable that they do notrequire any different imaging or process conditions than adjacentfeatures. The alignment system, which detects the alignment markers, isdescribed further below.

The depicted apparatus could be used in a variety of modes. In a scanmode, the patterning device support (e.g., mask table) MT and thesubstrate table WT are scanned synchronously while a pattern imparted tothe radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C (i.e., a singledynamic exposure). The speed and direction of the substrate table WTrelative to the patterning device support (e.g., mask table) MT may bedetermined by the (de-)magnification and image reversal characteristicsof the projection system PS. In scan mode, the maximum size of theexposure field limits the width (in the non-scanning direction) of thetarget portion in a single dynamic exposure, whereas the length of thescanning motion determines the height (in the scanning direction) of thetarget portion. Other types of lithographic apparatus and modes ofoperation are possible, as is well-known in the art. For example, a stepmode is known. In so-called “maskless” lithography, a programmablepatterning device is held stationary but with a changing pattern, andthe substrate table WT is moved or scanned.

Combinations and/or variations on the above described modes of use orentirely different modes of use may also be employed.

Lithographic apparatus LA is of a so-called dual stage type which hastwo substrate tables WTa, WTb and two stations—an exposure station EXPand a measurement station MEA—between which the substrate tables can beexchanged. While one substrate on one substrate table is being exposedat the exposure station, another substrate can be loaded onto the othersubstrate table at the measurement station and various preparatory stepscarried out. This enables a substantial increase in the throughput ofthe apparatus. On a single stage apparatus, the preparatory steps andexposure steps need to be performed sequentially on the single stage,for each substrate. The preparatory steps may include mapping thesurface height contours of the substrate using a level sensor LS andmeasuring the position of alignment markers on the substrate using analignment sensor AS. If the position sensor IF is not capable ofmeasuring the position of the substrate table while it is at themeasurement station as well as at the exposure station, a secondposition sensor may be provided to enable the positions of the substratetable to be tracked at both stations, relative to reference frame RF.Other arrangements are known and usable instead of the dual-stagearrangement shown. For example, other lithographic apparatuses are knownin which a substrate table and a measurement table are provided. Theseare docked together when performing preparatory measurements, and thenundocked while the substrate table undergoes exposure.

As shown in FIG. 2, the lithographic apparatus LA forms part of alithographic cell LC, also sometimes referred to a lithocell or cluster,which also includes apparatus to perform pre- and post-exposureprocesses on a substrate. Conventionally these include spin coaters SCto deposit resist layers, developers DE to develop exposed resist, chillplates CH and bake plates BK. A substrate handler, or robot, RO picks upsubstrates from input/output ports I/O1, I/O2, moves them between thedifferent process apparatus and delivers then to the loading bay LB ofthe lithographic apparatus. These devices, which are often collectivelyreferred to as the track, are under the control of a track control unitTCU which is itself controlled by the supervisory control system SCS,which also controls the lithographic apparatus via lithography controlunit LACU. Thus, the different apparatus can be operated to maximizethroughput and processing efficiency.

In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographicapparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable toinspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errorsbetween subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD),etc. Accordingly a manufacturing facility in which lithocell LC islocated also includes metrology system MET which receives some or all ofthe substrates W that have been processed in the lithocell. Metrologyresults are provided directly or indirectly to the supervisory controlsystem SCS. If errors are detected, adjustments may be made to exposuresof subsequent substrates.

Within metrology system MET, an inspection apparatus is used todetermine the properties of the substrates, and in particular, how theproperties of different substrates or different layers of the samesubstrate vary from layer to layer. The inspection apparatus may beintegrated into the lithographic apparatus LA or the lithocell LC or maybe a stand-alone device. To enable most rapid measurements, it may bedesirable that the inspection apparatus measure properties in theexposed resist layer immediately after the exposure. However, not allinspection apparatus have sufficient sensitivity to make usefulmeasurements of the latent image. Therefore measurements may be takenafter the post-exposure bake step (PEB) which is customarily the firststep carried out on exposed substrates and increases the contrastbetween exposed and unexposed parts of the resist. At this stage, theimage in the resist may be referred to as semi-latent. It is alsopossible to make measurements of the developed resist image—at whichpoint either the exposed or unexposed parts of the resist have beenremoved. Also, already exposed substrates may be stripped and reworkedto improve yield, or discarded, thereby avoiding performing furtherprocessing on substrates that are known to be faulty. In a case whereonly some target portions of a substrate are faulty, further exposurescan be performed only on those target portions which are good.

The metrology step with metrology system MET can also be done after theresist pattern has been etched into a product layer. The latterpossibility limits the possibilities for rework of faulty substrates butmay provide additional information about the performance of themanufacturing process as a whole.

FIG. 3 illustrates the steps to expose target portions (e.g. dies) on asubstrate W in the dual stage apparatus of FIG. 1. The process accordingto conventional practice will be described first. The present disclosureis by no means limited to dual stage apparatus of the illustrated type.The skilled person will recognize that similar operations are performedin other types of lithographic apparatus, for example those having asingle substrate stage and a docking metrology stage.

On the left hand side within a dotted box are steps performed atmeasurement station MEA, while the right hand side shows steps performedat exposure station EXP. From time to time, one of the substrate tablesWTa, WTb will be at the exposure station, while the other is at themeasurement station, as described above. For the purposes of thisdescription, it is assumed that a substrate W has already been loadedinto the exposure station. At step 200, a new substrate W′ is loaded tothe apparatus by a mechanism not shown. These two substrates areprocessed in parallel in order to increase the throughput of thelithographic apparatus.

Referring initially to the newly-loaded substrate W′, this may be apreviously unprocessed substrate, prepared with a new photo resist forfirst time exposure in the apparatus. In general, however, thelithography process described will be merely one step in a series ofexposure and processing steps, so that substrate W′ has been throughthis apparatus and/or other lithography apparatuses, several timesalready, and may have subsequent processes to undergo as well.Particularly for the problem of improving overlay performance, the taskis to ensure that new patterns are applied in exactly the correctposition on a substrate that has already been subjected to one or morecycles of patterning and processing. Each patterning step can introducepositional deviations in the applied pattern, while subsequentprocessing steps progressively introduce distortions in the substrateand/or the pattern applied to it that must be measured and correctedfor, to achieve satisfactory overlay performance.

The previous and/or subsequent patterning step may be performed in otherlithography apparatuses, as just mentioned, and may even be performed indifferent types of lithography apparatus. For example, some layers inthe device manufacturing process which are very demanding in parameterssuch as resolution and overlay may be performed in a more advancedlithography tool than other layers that are less demanding. Thereforesome layers may be exposed in an immersion type lithography tool, whileothers are exposed in a ‘dry’ tool. Some layers may be exposed in a toolworking at DUV wavelengths, while others are exposed using EUVwavelength radiation. Some layers may be patterned by steps that arealternative or supplementary to exposure in the illustrated lithographicapparatus. Such alternative and supplementary techniques include forexample imprint lithography, self-aligned multiple patterning anddirected self-assembly. Similarly, other processing steps performed perlayer (e.g., CMP and etch) may be performed on different apparatuses perlayer.

At 202, alignment measurements using the substrate marks P1 etc. andimage sensors (not shown) are used to measure and record alignment ofthe substrate relative to substrate table WTa/WTb. In addition, severalalignment marks across the substrate W′ will be measured using alignmentsensor AS. These measurements are used in one embodiment to establish asubstrate model (sometimes referred to as the “wafer grid”), which mapsvery accurately the distribution of marks across the substrate,including any distortion relative to a nominal rectangular grid.

At step 204, a map of wafer height (Z) against X-Y position is measuredalso using the level sensor LS. Primarily, the height map is used onlyto achieve accurate focusing of the exposed pattern. It may be used forother purposes in addition.

When substrate W′ was loaded, recipe data 206 were received, definingthe exposures to be performed, and also properties of the wafer and thepatterns previously made and to be made upon it. Where there is a choiceof alignment marks on the substrate, and where there is a choice ofsettings of an alignment sensor, these choices are defined in analignment recipe among the recipe data 206. The alignment recipetherefore defines how positions of alignment marks are to be measured,as well as which marks.

At 210, wafers W′ and W are swapped, so that the measured substrate W′becomes the substrate W entering the exposure station EXP. In theexample apparatus of FIG. 1, this swapping is performed by exchangingthe supports WTa and WTb within the apparatus, so that the substrates W,W′ remain accurately clamped and positioned on those supports, topreserve relative alignment between the substrate tables and substratesthemselves. Accordingly, once the tables have been swapped, determiningthe relative position between projection system PS and substrate tableWTb (formerly WTa) can be all that is necessary to make use of themeasurement information 202, 204 for the substrate W (formerly W′) incontrol of the exposure steps. At step 212, reticle alignment isperformed using the mask alignment marks M1, M2. In steps 214, 216, 218,scanning motions and radiation pulses are applied at successive targetlocations across the substrate W, in order to complete the exposure of anumber of patterns.

By using the alignment data and height map obtained at the measuringstation in the performance of the exposure steps, these patterns areaccurately aligned with respect to the desired locations, and, inparticular, with respect to features previously laid down on the samesubstrate. The exposed substrate, now labeled W″ is unloaded from theapparatus at step 220, to undergo etching or other processes, inaccordance with the exposed pattern.

For best performance, historical performance data relating to thelithography process are generally used in addition to measurements madewhen a current substrate is loaded into the lithographic apparatus. Forthis purpose, measurements of performance are made with the metrologysystem MET (FIG. 2). Different forms of advanced process control can beimplemented. FIG. 4 illustrates only one example, implementing a knownstability control method.

FIG. 4 depicts a stability module 300. This module is for example anapplication running on a processor, for example within the control unitLACU or the supervisory control system SCS of FIG. 2. Shown are threemain process control loops, labeled 1, 2, 3. The first loop provideslocal control of the lithography apparatus using the stability module300 and monitor wafers. A monitor wafer 302 is shown being passed from alithography cell 304, which may be the lithocell LC of FIG. 2 forexample. Monitor wafer 304 has been exposed with a calibration patternto set ‘baseline’ parameters for focus and overlay. At a later time, ametrology tool 306 reads these baseline parameters, which are theninterpreted by the stability module 300 so as to calculate stabilitycorrections 308 specific to this lithocell. This performance data can befed back to the lithography cell 304, and used when performing furtherexposures. The exposure of the monitor wafer may involve printing apattern of marks on top of reference marks. By measuring overlay errorbetween the top and bottom marks, deviations in performance of thelithographic apparatus can be measured, even when the wafers have beenremoved from the apparatus and placed in a metrology tool.

The second (APC) control loop is based on measurements of performanceparameters such as focus, dose, and overlay on actual product wafers. Anexposed product wafer 320 is passed to metrology tool 322, which may bethe same or different to the metrology tool 306 in the first controlloop. At 322 information relating for example to parameters such ascritical dimension, sidewall angles and overlay is determined and passedto an Advanced Process Control (APC) module 324. This data is alsopassed to the stability module 300. Process corrections 326 arecalculated and used by the supervisory control system (SCS) 328,providing control of the lithocell 304, in communication with thestability module 300.

The third control loop is to allow metrology integration into the second(APC) control loop, for example in double patterning applications. Anetched wafer 330 is passed to metrology unit 332 which again may be thesame or different to the metrology tool 306, 322 used in the firstand/or second control loop. Metrology tool 332 measures performanceparameters such as critical dimensions, sidewall angles and overlay,read from the wafer. These parameters are passed to the Advanced ProcessControl (APC) module 324. The loop continues the same as with the secondloop.

Current process correction strategies in a high volume manufacturing(HVM) environment are typically performed on a per chuck and per lotbasis. However, more recently a per substrate correction is considered.It then becomes possible to define process corrections per substrateinstead of per lot. Practical strategies for taking advantage of a persubstrate correction for process control at the per substrate level(herein referred to as wafer level control or WLC) need to be devised.It is expensive (particularly in terms of time and throughput) toperform overlay metrology for each processed substrate. Instead, a persubstrate prediction of the “process fingerprint” can be made. Theprocess fingerprint (or signature) describes the distortion or otherdeformations imposed on a substrate by a particular process step and/orprocess tool. Such predictions could be based on the exposure sequence(which is known in advance) or the context/processing history. However,this has some disadvantages. Firstly, keeping track of and managing allhistoric processing steps, especially for a higher layer, involvessignificant effort. Secondly, it may be difficult to establish a clearrelationship between process tools and the impact on overlay.

Using metrology data which is generally generated on a more regularbasis, for example alignment data or levelling data which is generatedon a per substrate basis, is an alternative to reducesubstrate-to-substrate variations. However, considering specifically theexample of alignment data, the correction capacity is limited: to avoida throughput penalty only a limited number of alignment marks can bemeasured; the alignment model is often limited to a global (interfield)model; and often the alignment marks suffer from process-induced markdamage, resulting in less reliable measurements.

It is proposed to group substrates together and determine a correctionbased on the substrate group in a run-to-run, wafer level controlstrategy. In the HVM environment, the cluster assignment could beperformed according to the context history of the substrates. However,as already described, tracking context history is undesirablyburdensome. Instead, it is proposed to group substrates according topre-exposure parameter data (e.g., pre-exposure metrology data) whichcorrelates with a post-exposure performance parameter (e.g., overlay)being controlled. By grouping the substrates in this way, it is possibleto achieve close to a “per substrate” accuracy while benefitting fromrelatively large averaging across the substrates per group.

In this context, pre-exposure metrology data comprises metrology datafrom measurements performed prior to exposure of the layer for which theperformance parameter is being controlled, i.e., the term “pre-exposure”is relative to exposure of the next layer. As such, pre-exposuremetrology data may comprise measurements performed on a substrate onwhich previous layers have been exposed, for control of exposure of afurther layer on the substrate.

Pre-exposure data may comprise data from measurements performed prior toloading on the lithographic apparatus (scanner) for exposure of thecurrent layer, or subsequent to loading on the lithographic apparatus(scanner) for exposure of the current layer. In the latter example, thepre-exposure data may comprise preparatory metrology for the exposure ofthat layer. In an embodiment, the pre-exposure metrology data maycomprise alignment data. The alignment data may comprise measurementsperformed in preparation for exposure of the current layer subsequent toloading of the substrate. Alternatively, or in combination, thealignment data may comprise measurements performed in preparation forexposure of a previous layer, i.e., prior to loading of the substratefor measurement and exposure of the current layer. Alternatively, or incombination, the pre-exposure metrology data may comprise levelling datadescribing the shape of the substrate. As with alignment data, thelevelling data may be from measurements performed in preparation forexposure of the current layer, or of previous layers. Alternatively, orin combination, the pre-exposure metrology data may comprise wafergeometry data and/or in-plane distortion data.

Considering the example of the pre-exposure metrology data comprisingalignment data, this alignment data may be measured across a substrateat the measurement station of the lithography tool. The alignment datamay comprise a plurality of vectors across the substrate, each vectorrepresenting the position and displacement of a mark position measuredby the alignment sensor AS, relative to a nominal position (e.g., apositional deviation), for a particular mark on the substrate. All thesubstrates may have the same spatial distribution of marks andmeasurements, but the actual deviations are generally unique to eachsubstrate. Analysis of the pre-exposure metrology data (alignmentmeasurements) over a population of substrates can be performed so as toreveal various “fingerprints” that may be hidden in the data. Similarly,fingerprints can be obtained from a substrate topography or shapemeasurement measured, for example, using level sensor LS. It is knownthat any of the different steps in the production of the processedsubstrate can contribute its own fingerprint to the distribution ofposition errors across the substrate. Bearing in mind that a realproduct may have gone through dozens of process steps, including manycycles of patterning and processing in different apparatuses anddifferent types of apparatuses, it becomes very difficult to know whichtypes of apparatus, let alone which individual apparatuses, havecontributed to errors present in the finished product.

The proposed method may comprise two phases. An initial set-up ortraining phase is performed in order to categorize a set of substratesinto plural groups. This set-up phase may comprise training a classifierto categorize the pre-exposure metrology data (input objects) accordingto (e.g., labelled by) characteristics of the performance parameter(output). Any suitable (e.g., supervised, semi-supervised orunsupervised) machine learning technique for hard or soft classificationof data may be used, for example linear discriminant analysis, logisticregression, a support vector classifier or principal component analysis(PCA). Other suitable classification methods are described in PCT patentapplication publication no. WO2015049087, herein incorporated byreference. This describes methods where alignment data or othermeasurements are made at stages during the performance of a lithographicprocess to obtain object data representing positional deviation or otherparameters measured at points spatially distributed across each wafer.This object data is used to obtain diagnostic information by performinga multivariate analysis to decompose the set of the vectors representingthe wafers in the multidimensional space into one or more componentvectors. Diagnostic information about the industrial process isextracted using the component vectors. The performance of thelithographic process for subsequent product units can be controlledbased on the extracted diagnostic information.

The training phase may be performed on historical data from a pluralityof substrates for which the pre-exposure metrology data andpost-exposure metrology data (measurements of the performance parameter)are available. For the specific examples already mentioned, alignmentfingerprints (which describe substrate grid distortion in the substrateplane) or substrate shapes or topographies (which describe substratedistortions in the direction normal to the substrate plane) and areclassified according to a characteristic of corresponding overlaymeasurements (for example an overlay fingerprint characteristic). Theresult of this training phase may comprise a plurality of substrategroups, each labelled by a common fingerprint or topographycharacteristic and corresponding coefficients. Each performanceparameter characteristic will have an associated process correction(e.g., an optimal correction recipe). In an embodiment, the set-up phasemay coincide with normal production (the control phase, based on lotbased process correction).

FIG. 5 is a flowchart describing a specific example of the trainingphase for predictive substrate classification. The set-up phase maycomprise using a supervised learning algorithm on (e.g., historic)training data 400 comprising pre-exposure metrology data for a number ofsubstrates labelled by post-exposure metrology data describing theperformance parameter for those substrates. As there will typically bemuch more pre-exposure metrology data available than post-exposuremetrology data, the set-up phase may comprise using a semi-supervisedlearning algorithm where only a few substrates are labeled (thesubstrates measured post-exposure), while the substrates only measuredpre-exposure are unlabeled. Such semi-supervised classification may uselabel-spreading methods, for example. In a specific example, thepre-exposure metrology data may comprise alignment fingerprints orsubstrate topographies and the post-exposure metrology data may compriseoverlay, critical dimension or focus fingerprints. Firstly, an intra-lotclustering step 410 is performed to identify per-lot clusters/groups.Following this, an inter-lot clustering step 420 is performed toidentify similar fingerprints/topologies between lots. A classificationstep 430 is then performed to train a classifier using the trainingdata. During this step, pre-exposure metrology data groups (i.e., thesubstrate groups) are defined. A validation step 440 is then performed.In this validation step 440, substrates are assigned to the substrategroups based upon historical data. A shadow mode simulation ofperformance parameter benefit is then performed per process correctionthread.

In a second phase or control phase, pre-exposure metrology data for asubstrate is obtained, for example by performing alignment and/orlevelling metrology on the substrate. This metrology may be performed ina lithographic apparatus as part of an alignment and substrate measuringprocess; for example using, respectively, the alignment sensor AS andlevel sensor LS of FIG. 1 by the methods described above. Based on thispre-exposure metrology data, the substrate is assigned a groupmembership status. The group membership status may comprise each of thesubstrates being assigned membership of a single group (hardclassification) or partial membership of some or all groups (softclassification; e.g., using a softmax function). In either case, thegroups will be one of the substrate groups determined during the set-upphase (or possibly determined during this control phase as will bedescribed later). The pre-exposure metrology data may comprisemeasurement of any common physical property for all substrates which issensitive to substrate process variations; for example: an alignmentfingerprint or substrate topography or flatness measurement. Based onthe group membership status, an associated process correction will beidentified. This associated process correction may then be used duringexposure of the layer being exposed.

In an embodiment, the pre-exposure metrology on the substrate and thesubsequent categorization of the substrate, identification of associatedcorrections and exposure of the layer using the corrections are allperformed by the lithographic apparatus. This will mean that thecorrection loop will be short (the pre-exposure metrology data isdirectly used in the subsequent exposure step). No additional tool tomeasure the substrate is needed.

In an embodiment, where the lithographic apparatus comprises more thanone support (more than one chuck) as illustrated in FIG. 1, the chuckassignment may be taken into account when identifying corrections basedon the substrate categorization. As such, corrections may be associatedto a particular substrate group on a per chuck basis.

The performance parameter (e.g., overlay) will be measured post-exposureon some or all of the substrates. The resulting metrology data can thenbe modeled and the parameters used to update or replace the processcorrections associated with the substrate groups applicable to themeasured substrates. Process correction updates may be implemented witha time filter and/or averaged (e.g. using a moving average). Themodeling may be done once for every substrate group. Alternatively, themodeling may comprise modeling all the parameters at once using bothclass-specific and shared parameters.

In an embodiment, during the control phase, it may be determined thatthe pre-exposure metrology data for a particular substrate does notproperly belong to any of the substrate groups identified in thetraining phase, according to a metric. For example, the metric may be adistance metric, and a particular substrate may be deemed to notproperly belong to any substrate group if the distance metric to thenearest substrate group is above a threshold value. In a specificexample, the distance metric may refer to the distance between themeasured alignment fingerprint (or other pre-exposure metrology data) ofa substrate and the metrology fingerprint defining the closest group. Insuch an embodiment, the method may comprise updating the substrategroups by updating the corresponding characteristic which characterizesone or more of the substrate groups such that one of the substrategroups now encompasses the characteristic of the pre-exposure metrologydata for this substrate. In this way, the characteristic of eachsubstrate group can be updated while maintaining consistency in thenumber of groups. By way of an alternative, an embodiment may compriseadding a new group corresponding to a characteristic of the pre-exposuremetrology data for the uncategorized substrate. The performanceparameter (e.g., overlay) for this substrate would then be measuredpost-exposure and used to label the pre-exposure metrology data for theuncategorized substrate. Also, corresponding corrections should bedetermined for the new substrate group (e.g., by modeling), which canthen be used for correcting subsequent substrates that are categorizedin this group. By way of an alternative, substrates which do not fit anygroup may be reworked and set aside.

The selection of substrates for post-exposure measurement may beoptimized during the control phase. This optimization may compriseselecting substrates which are identified as being the mostrepresentative of its corresponding substrate group. This may compriseselecting a substrate for which its associated distance metric used inits categorization is smaller than the distance metrics of the othersubstrates in the group. However, substrate selection based solely onrepresentativeness may cause some groups to be updated more often thanothers. Therefore, in another embodiment, substrates may be selectedbased on a combination of representativeness and how recently thecorresponding correction set was last updated.

As already described, with hard classification at least, the substratesare “binned” in pre-defined groups, with group based corrections thenapplied uniformly to each member of the group. In such embodiments, theclassification/clustering can be performed by statistical tools such asPrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) using inline or offline data from thescanner or other metrology tools. However, in practice, the distinctionbetween groups is often not trivial and therefore binning is notpreferred. This is illustrated by the example graph of FIG. 6. This is aplot of a PCA score value on the y-axis against substrate (x-axis) for alot of 25 substrates with respect to a particular eigenwafer (aneigenfingerprint or principal component). To obtain the plot, PCA wasperformed on substrate alignment data (pre-exposure metrology data) of alot (25 substrates). The most dominant fingerprint was then identified(the first eigenwafer or first eigenfingerprint) and the graph plots thescore value for this eigenwafer per measured substrate (i.e. a measureof the presence of the eigenfingerprint in each substrate). It can beseen from FIG. 6 that there is no clear clustering of the substrates;the spread of the substrates being more continuous than this. This canresult in an essentially arbitrary classification for some substrates.

It is therefore proposed, in this embodiment, to improve the correctionusing a weighted classification based on a classification score. Theweighted classification improves the per-substrate correction byweighting each correction using the score values of substrates found byPCA. In such an embodiment, each eigenwafer identified may represent adifferent group in the classification. In an embodiment, not allidentified eigenwafers define a separate group. For example, one or moreof the least dominant eigenwafers (eigenfingerprints/principalcomponents) may be ignored when defining the groups. The set-up phasemay be largely as already has been described, but specifically using aclassification technique, an example of which is PCA, which providesscores for each substrate in terms of the group (eigenwafer), e.g., ameasure of its degree of membership within that group (which can bepositive as well as negative). Other examples of suitable statisticalclassification methods which assign weights or scores to a member of agroup comprise: Random Forest, Bayesian networks, neural networks,linear discriminant analysis. The pre-exposure metrology data andpost-exposure metrology data may comprise data as already described inother embodiments. In an embodiment the weighting, based on the scorevalue, may be applied to (e.g., multiplied with) the overlay (or otherprocess parameter) fingerprint correction to provide a weightedcorrection.

FIG. 7 is a graph, for a particular group or eigenwafer, of the scoreattributed to post-exposure metrology data (y-axis) such as measuredoverlay fingerprints against pre-exposure metrology data (x-axis) suchas measured alignment fingerprints. Each point represents a differentsubstrate of a lot of (25) substrates. What is evident is that there isa correlation between score values for the post-exposure metrology dataand pre-exposure metrology data. This correlation shows that the scoresattributable to the pre-exposure metrology data (e.g., alignment data)can be used to determine optimal corrections for wafer level control.Note that the better this correlation, the better the predicted overlaycorrection will be.

It should be noted that in such an embodiment, only one group needs tobe defined. While technically this may be true for hard classification,the results would be essentially meaningless as each substrate couldonly be assigned to that single group and therefore could not bedistinguished. However, in this embodiment the weighting, based on thescore value, would mean that different corrections may be applied basedon the pre-exposure metrology data regardless of whether there is onlyone group (e.g., a single, most dominant, eigenwafer) or more than onegroup defined. Where there is more than one group defined, thecorrection applied to a substrate may be that applicable to the group ofwhich the substrate is assigned, weighted according to the substrate'sscore in relation to its group. In an embodiment, the actualclassification may be a hard classification, with each substrateassigned to a single group, with the corresponding correction scoreweighted according to its score (e.g., its degree of membership) withinthat group. In an alternative embodiment, each substrate may beoptionally assigned partial membership of multiple groups, with thescore values used in the weighting of the corrections between thegroups. In the latter example, some substrates may be classified in onlya single group if the score value is particularly high (in absoluteterms) for that group.

FIG. 8 shows a flowchart conceptually describing a method according to aspecific embodiment. A set-up phase 700 comprises obtaining historictraining data for a plurality of substrates 705 and performing aclustering and classification step 710 to obtain a plurality ofsubstrate groups 715. Within a lithographic apparatus 720, pre-exposuremetrology 725 is performed. The resultant pre-exposure metrology data isprocessed 730 within processor 735, to assign each substrate to asubstrate group 740 (which may include partially assigning a substrateto more than one substrate group, as appropriate). This step mayoptionally also comprise storing a score (or scores) associated witheach substrate indicating the degree to which the substrate belongs toits assigned group (or groups). The processor 735 then assigns 745 aprocess correction 750 to each substrate 748 in accordance with theassigned class(es) and/or score(s). Processor 735 may be integrated with(e.g., form part of) lithographic apparatus 720 or may be a stand-aloneprocessing module. At step 760, each assigned process correction 750 isused for wafer level control when exposing the next layer on thatsubstrate. Within a metrology apparatus (such as a scatterometer) 765,one or more already categorized substrates 770 are measuredpost-exposure 775 (e.g., substrates which have been exposed prior to theplurality of substrates 705 being introduced to lithographic apparatus720). For each substrate group, a correction update 780 a, 780 b, 780 isdetermined and fed to the processor 735 for use when the algorithmassigns a process correction 745. The correction update may be aweighted correction update based on group membership status of eachsubstrate, particularly where a soft assignment method is used (e.g., asoftmax method). The method may further comprise an optimization step(not shown) which optimizes the updated process corrections 750, suchthat pre-optimized process corrections are selected from when assigningprocess corrections at step 745 (one pre-optimized correction perclass).

In this way, pre-exposure metrology data can be used in an automatedsolution for run-to-run wafer level control of a lithographic processwithout any requirement for processing history information to betracked, nor offline measurements to be made.

It may be desirable to make an assessment of theclustering/classification of the methods described herein. Inparticular, it may be useful to assess how well substrates are relatedto a certain group of substrates, and whether, for example, pre-exposuremetrology data is representative/useful to serve as a basis for theinitial clustering of the substrates (e.g., how well does thepre-exposure metrology data correlate with post-exposure metrology dataassociated with the substrates).

This assessment may be made as part of a training phase, for example,set up phase 700 and more specifically clustering and classificationstep 710 and/or clustering steps 410, 420 and/or classification step430. The assessment may comprise applying clustering algorithms (e.g.,k-means, Gaussian mixture models, etc.) to determine k groups ofsubstrates based on post-exposure metrology data and, separately, todetermine j groups of substrates based on pre-exposure metrology data.

In an embodiment, the optimal number k and j can be determinedautomatically by using the Bayesian information criterion or similarmodel selection techniques. In such an embodiment, this may comprisefinding the minimum of the Bayesian information criterion BIC, which maytake the form:BIC=−2·ln {circumflex over (L)}+k ln(n)where {circumflex over (L)} the maximized value of the likelihoodfunction of the clustering model used, k is the number of modelparameters and n is the number of samples.

In a specific example, the clustering model used on the pre-exposuremetrology data and the post-exposure metrology data may be a Gaussianmixture model, e.g., a weighted sum of Gaussians multiplied by a priorprobability. In a specific embodiment, this model p(x) might comprise:p(x)Σ_(i=0) ^(k)π_(i)

(x|μ _(i),Σ_(i))where Σ_(i=0) ^(k)π_(i)=1, x is the data being clustered, k is thenumber of components (clusters), μ_(i) is the mean and Σ_(i) is thecovariance of the component i.

It is proposed to apply a matching algorithm to match the k groupswithin the post-exposure metrology data to the j groups within thepre-exposure metrology data. This may comprise optimizing one or morematching metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs). Possible KPIs mayinclude, for example, matching accuracy or purity. Assessing matchingaccuracy may comprise determining the correlation and/or area under thecurve from a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve on a plot oftrue positive rate against false positive rate for differentdiscrimination thresholds. Purity is a measure of similarity (e.g., interms of their labels following classification) of the samples within agroup. More specifically, for a set of groups Ω={ω₁, ω₂, . . . , ω_(K)}and set of labels

={c₁, c₂, . . . , c_(J)} then purity (Ω,

) may be defined as:

${purity}\mspace{14mu}{\left( {\Omega,\ {\mathbb{C}}} \right) = {\frac{1}{N}{\sum\limits_{k}{\max\limits_{j}{{\omega_{k}\bigcap c_{j}}}}}}}$as such, purity of pre-exposure metrology data groups may comprise thehomogeneity of the pre-exposure metrology data within each cluster withrespect to its one or more matched post exposure metrology datacluster(s) (e.g., are all or most members of a pre-exposure cluster fromonly the post-exposure cluster(s) matched thereto and vice versa).

It might be expected that the number of k groups within thepost-exposure metrology data and the j groups within the post-exposuremetrology data will be the same; i.e., j=k. This would imply thatpre-exposure metrology data induces the same groups as post-exposuremetrology data. However, there are a number of reasons why this may notbe the case, and that in fact j≠k. In the embodiments described, thematching algorithm matches the groups even when j≠k.

FIG. 9 shows an example where the clustering has revealed fourpre-exposure metrology data groups G_(a) 1-G_(a) 4 and threepost-exposure metrology data groups G_(b) 1-G_(b) 3. FIG. 9 also showsthat the matching of groups G_(a) 1 and G_(a) 2 of the pre-exposuremetrology data to group G_(b) 1 of the post-exposure metrology data,group G_(a) 3 of the pre-exposure metrology data to group G_(b) 2 of thepost-exposure metrology data, and group G_(a) 4 of the pre-exposuremetrology data to group G_(b) 3 of the post-exposure metrology data.

In an embodiment, samples with uncertain group membership (e.g.,outliers and/or samples close to a group or decision boundary) may beexcluded from the grouping. For example, any samples which are within acertain distance (margin) from a decision boundary may be excluded. In aspecific example, where w is a vector orthogonal to the decisionboundary and b is a scalar offset term, then the decision boundary maybe written as:w ^(T) x+b=0and the margin may be defined as anywhere within:(w ^(T) x _(i) +b)y _(i) >cwhere c determines the size of the margin either side of the decisionboundary. In another embodiment, where a weighted classification is used(as already described), then the weighting assigned to a substrate maybe used to determine an uncertain group membership and therefore whethera particular substrate may be excluded. FIG. 9 shows an example wheretwo substrates W23, W15 with uncertain group status have been included.Because of the uncertainty in their group status, they have beenincorrectly assigned to the incorrect post-exposure metrology groups:substrate W23 has been assigned to group G_(b) 2 instead of G_(b) 3 andsubstrate W15 has been assigned to group G_(b) 3 instead of G_(b) 2. Itis proposed that these substrates may be excluded altogether or given alesser weighting based on their uncertain status.

In an embodiment, an initial step of removing irrelevant, or lessrelevant features is performed, such that the clustering is performedonly on pre-exposure features related to post-exposure metrologyvariation. Irrelevant features will increase the number of groupsrequired and will result in low matching quality which may not besignificantly better than random. In an embodiment, the number ofdimensions of the pre-exposure metrology data may be limited to two. Forexample, having only two-dimensional data will typically mean that farfewer groups will be required. By way of a specific example, it wasshown on a test dataset that only three groups were required fortwo-dimensional data, while adding another dimension required eightgroups. It should be appreciated that the actual number of groupsrequired in each case will depend on the dataset.

During a validation phase, a KPI may be determined which describes thematching quality. This may comprise determining the statisticalsignificance of the grouping performance. For example, a p-value may becalculated, which indicates whether the quality of the group matching issignificantly better (e.g., better by a threshold margin) than random.If it is determined that the group matching quality is not significantlybetter than random, this might indicate that the pre-exposure metrologydata does not adequately explain the substrate-to-substrate variationobserved in the post-exposure metrology data. If this is the case, theaforementioned steps may be repeated using a different type ofpre-exposure metrology data or a different type of pre-exposureparameter data (e.g., alignment, levelling, process history, etc.).Another reason why the group matching quality may not be significantlybetter than random is that the clustering algorithm might not be workingeffectively on the dataset. If none of the available clusteringalgorithms or pre-exposure measures lead to statistically significantgroup matching performance, it may be inferred that that cluster-basedcontrol should not be used in the current substrate production scenario.On the other hand, when the KPIs indicate good, statisticallysignificant, grouping performance then the cluster-based controlstrategy may be activated in production.

In another embodiment, the concepts described herein can be used forcorrection between patterning steps of a multiple patterning processsuch as an LELE (litho-etch-litho-etch) process. In such an embodiment,the pre-exposure parameter data may comprise context data relating to aprocessing context used.

In a practical sense, there may be a large number of different contextvariables (context parameters) involved. Each processing tool,processing chamber and processing recipe, for example, can be consideredto be a separate context. As such, the number of context combinationsmay be extremely large. The logistics of monitoring each unique contextcombination is not always practical.

It is therefore proposed, in a specific embodiment, that the contextdata on which control is based on is limited to the etch chamber used inthe etch step immediately preceding a previous lithography step. An etchtool can have multiple chambers (typically up to 4), resulting in alimited set of unique context values (corresponding to the number ofetch chambers). By tracking which etch chamber is used to process eachsubstrate, the substrates of each lot can be classified into (e.g.,four) groups. For each group, a separate WLC control can then bedetermined. These WLC corrections may be added to the ‘normal’ (APC)corrections applied in lot-to-lot control. In multiple patterningapplications generally, it is typically advised to use the samecorrections for each patterning (litho-etch) step. The proposaldescribed in this embodiment improves the intra-layer “overlay” (betweeneach litho step of a layer), by proposing a context based wafer-levelcontrol on the difference between layer position of both layers.

FIG. 10 is a flow diagram which illustrates such an embodiment. Theexample here shows a double patterning LELE process, where each layer isexposed in two separate litho-etch steps. The embodiment is applicableto multiple patterning processes more generally, however, includingthose with more than two separate litho-etch steps. In an initial lot,lot N, a first patterning step is performed L1 _(N). The firstpatterning step L1 _(N) may be performed with a correction determinedusing APC control loops, based on measurement of one or more previouslots, as already described. Following the first patterning step, a firstetch step E1 _(N) is performed. In this first etch step E1 _(N), eachsubstrate is etched in one of (for example) four etch chambersEC_(a)-EC_(d). The etch chamber used to etch each substrate is recorded(as the relevant context) and each substrate is assigned to a groupcorresponding to the etch chamber used. Additionally one or more of thepatterned substrates following patterning step L1 _(N) are measured in afirst measurement step MET1 using a metrology device. In a specificembodiment at least two are measured, one per chuck, to obtain aper-chuck measurement. The first measurement step may comprisemeasurement of a first overlay fingerprint OV1 for example. Followingthe first patterning step L1 _(N) and first etch step E1 _(N), a secondpatterning step L2 _(N) is performed with the same APC correction asthat performed for the first patterning step L1 _(N). Following secondpatterning step L2 _(N), a second measurement step MET2 is performedusing the metrology device. In the second metrology step MET2, at leastone substrate per group is measured (and also, optionally, per chuck).The second measurement step may comprise measurements of a secondoverlay fingerprint OV2 per group (or class/chuck combination), forexample. The difference between second overlay fingerprint OV2 and firstoverlay fingerprint OV1 can then be calculated and used to determine anintra-layer correction cor_(a)-cor_(d) for each substrate group (secondcorrections). The intra-layer correction cor_(a)-cor_(d) may be suchthat their application minimizes the difference between second overlayfingerprint OV2 and first overlay fingerprint OV1.

In a subsequent lot, such as lot N+1, the first patterning step L1_(N+1) and first etch step E1 _(N+1) is performed in a manner similar asthat performed for lot N, using the “standard” APC correction, asappropriate (a first correction). This may include an exponentiallyweighted moving average EWMA of previous measurements. As before, theetch chamber (context) used in etch step E1 _(N+1) is tracked. Based onthis context, the appropriate one of corrections cor_(a)-cor_(d) for thegroup corresponding to that context is selected. This (second)correction is used with the APC (first) correction when performing asecond patterning step L2 _(N+1), following which a second etch step(not shown) will be performed. In this way, the final double patterned(LELE) layer will look more like a single exposure, from an overlayperspective.

It will be appreciated that, in principle, this concept can be extendedto more complex context threads than that illustrated (etch chambers)and to parameters other than overlay (for example CD or edge placementerror (EPE)).

Further embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the list ofnumbered embodiments below:

1. A method of determining a correction for a process parameter relatedto a lithographic process on a substrate, the lithographic processcomprising a plurality of runs during each one of which a pattern isapplied to one or more substrates, the method comprising:

obtaining pre-exposure parameter data relating to a property of thesubstrate;

obtaining post-exposure metrology data comprising one or moremeasurements of the process parameter having been performed by anequivalent lithographic process on one or more previously exposedsubstrates of the lithographic process;

assigning to the substrate, a group membership status from one or moregroups, based on the pre-exposure parameter data; and

determining the correction for the process parameter based on the groupmembership status and the post-exposure metrology data.

2. A method according to embodiment 1, comprising performing thelithographic process on the substrate using the correction.

3. A method according to embodiment 1 or 2, wherein the pre-exposureparameter data comprises pre-exposure metrology data.

4. A method according to embodiment 3, comprising performing apre-exposure metrology step on the substrate to obtain the pre-exposuremetrology data.

5. A method according to embodiment 4, wherein the pre-exposuremetrology step, and a subsequent step of performing the lithographicprocess on the substrate using the correction is performed by the samelithographic apparatus.

6. A method according to embodiment 5, wherein the steps of assigning agroup membership status and determining the correction for the processparameter are also performed by the same lithographic apparatus.

7, A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 6, wherein thepre-exposure metrology data comprises alignment data describingacross-substrate grid distortions in the substrate plane.

8. A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 7, wherein thepre-exposure metrology data comprises data describing the shape of thesubstrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate plane.

9. A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 8, wherein thepre-exposure metrology data comprises leveling data.

10. A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 9, comprising the stepof identifying for a particular group, a substrate which is mostrepresentative of the group.

11. A method according to embodiment 10, comprising measuring thesubstrate which is most representative of the group; and

updating a correction for the process parameter corresponding to thegroup based on the measurement.

12. A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 11, wherein the groupmembership status is such that each substrate may be assigned a degreeof membership to one or more of the groups.

13. A method according to embodiment 12, wherein the step of determiningthe correction for the process parameter is based on weighing ofcorrections associated with one or more groups based on the degrees ofmembership of that substrate to the one or more groups.14. A method according to embodiment 13, wherein the degree ofmembership to a group is based on a classification score representativeof the measure of the presence of a fingerprint defining that group inthe pre-exposure metrology data.15 A method according to embodiment 14, wherein the assigning stepcomprises performing a principal component analysis on the pre-exposuremetrology data to identify the presence of one or more eigenfingerprintsin the pre-exposure metrology data and the classification scorerepresentative of the measure of the presence of a correspondingeigenfingerprint(s) in the pre-exposure metrology data.16. A method according to embodiment 14 or 15, comprising an initialtraining stage wherein the one or more groups are determined from aprincipal component analysis performed on the pre-exposure metrologydata, each group being defined by an eigenfingerprint determined fromthe principal component analysis.17. A method according to any of embodiments 3 to 14, comprising aninitial training stage wherein the one or more groups are determined.18. A method according to embodiment 17, wherein the one or more groupsare determined from a plurality of labeled sets of the pre-exposuremetrology data, each labeled set relating to a different substrate of aplurality of substrates and labeled by post-exposure metrology datarelating to that substrate.19. A method according to embodiment 18, wherein the initial trainingstage comprises performing a supervised or semi-supervisedclassification algorithm which trains a classifier on at least thelabeled sets of pre-exposure metrology data so as to define the one ormore groups.20. A method according to any of embodiments 17 to 19, wherein theinitial training stage comprises the steps of identifying pre-exposuregroups in the pre-exposure metrology data.21. A method according to embodiment 20, wherein the step of identifyingpre-exposure groups comprises identifying intra-lot groups andidentifying inter-lot groups.22. A method according to embodiment 20 or 21, wherein the initialtraining stage comprises the steps of identifying post-exposure groupsin the post-exposure metrology data.23. A method according to embodiment 22, comprising a step of matchingthe post-exposure groups to the pre-exposure groups by optimizing atleast one matching metric related to a quality of the matching.24. A method according to embodiment 23, wherein the matching metriccomprises one or more of:

purity of the pre-exposure groups and/or post-exposure groups in termsof homogeneity across each group; and

correlation and/or area under a curve as determined from a receiveroperating characteristic curve describing the groups for differentdiscrimination thresholds.

25. A method according to embodiment 23 or 24, wherein it is determinedwhether the statistical significance of the matched groups described bythe matching metric is significantly greater than random.

26. A method according to embodiment 25, wherein, where it is determinedthat the statistical significance of the matched groups described by thematching metric is not significantly greater than random, repeating thetraining stage using a different type of pre-exposure metrology data.27. A method according to any of embodiments 23 to 26, whereinsubstrates which have uncertain group membership status are excludedfrom, or given lesser weighting in, the matching step.28. A method according to any of embodiments 23 to 27, wherein thematching step is performed only on pre-exposure features within thepre-exposure data related to post-exposure metrology variation.29. A method according to any of embodiments 22 to 28, comprisingoptimizing separately the number of pre-exposure groups andpost-exposure groups.30. A method according to any of embodiments 17 to 29, wherein theinitial training stage comprises a validation step comprising assigningsubstrates to the one or more groups based on historic data andsimulating the effect on the post-exposure metrology data.31. A method according to any of embodiments 17 to 30, wherein thepost-exposure metrology data comprises overlay data.32. A method according to any of embodiments 1 to 11, wherein the groupmembership status is such that each substrate is always assigned to asingle group, or else is unclassified.33. A method according to any preceding embodiment, wherein pre-exposuremetrology data comprises data relating to a previously exposed layer onthe substrate.34. A method according to any of embodiments 1 to 32, whereinpre-exposure metrology data comprises data relating to a layer to beexposed on the substrate in a subsequent step of the lithographicprocess.35. A method according to embodiment 1 or 2, wherein the pre-exposureparameter data comprises context data relating to a particularprocessing step.36. A method according to embodiment 35, wherein the context datarelates to a tool used on a processing step for processing thesubstrate.37. A method according to embodiment 36, wherein the context datarelates to a particular etch chamber used during an etch step and eachgroup corresponds to one of the etch chambers.38. A method according to embodiment 35, 36 or 37, wherein thelithographic process comprises a multiple patterning process having atleast a first patterning and etch step and a second patterning and etchstep per layer.39. A method according to embodiment 38, wherein the correctioncomprises a second correction relative to a first correction, the methodcomprising the steps of:

performing a first patterning and etch step with the first correction;

determining the context applicable to the first patterning and etchstep;

assigning the group membership status to the substrate based on thecontext determination; and

determining the second correction for the second patterning and etchstep based on the group membership status and the first correction.

40. A method according to embodiment 39, comprising performing for eachgroup, the initial steps of:

obtaining first process parameter data relating to a first measurementof the process parameter between the first patterning and etch step andthe second patterning and etch step;

obtaining second process parameter data relating to a second measurementof the process parameter subsequent to the second patterning and etchstep; and

calculating the second correction based on the difference between thefirst process parameter data and the second process parameter data.

41. A method according to embodiment 40, wherein the second correctionis calculated to minimize the difference between the first processparameter data and the second process parameter data for each group.

42. A method according to any preceding embodiment, wherein the processparameter comprises overlay.

43. A method according to any of embodiments 1 to 41, wherein theprocess parameter comprises one of critical dimension and edge placementerror.

44. A method according to any preceding embodiment, wherein the step ofdetermining the correction for the process parameter based on the groupmembership status also determines the correction for the processparameter based on which chuck the substrate is mounted on during thelithographic process.45. A method according to any preceding embodiment, comprising measuringthe substrate post-exposure to obtain post-exposure measurements of thesubstrate; and using the post-exposure measurements of the substrate toupdate the correction(s) for the process parameter corresponding to thegroup membership status assigned to the substrate.46. A method according to any preceding embodiment, wherein, where it isdetermined that the pre-exposure metrology data is of an insufficientfit to any of the one or more groups according to a metric, the methodcomprises updating the one or more groups such that the pre-exposuremetrology data can be classified.47. A method according to embodiment 46, wherein the step of updatingthe one or more groups comprises maintaining the same number of groups,and updating a data characteristic defining one or more of the groups,such that the pre-exposure metrology data for this substrate is asufficient fit for at least one of the groups according to the metric.48. A method according to embodiment 46, wherein the step of updatingthe one or more groups comprises adding a new group defined by a datacharacteristic having an improved fit to the substrate relative to theother groups.49. A method according to any preceding embodiment, comprisingperforming the method for each substrate of a run.50. A method according to embodiment 49, wherein the post-exposuremetrology data comprises one or more measurements of the processparameter having been performed by an equivalent lithographic process onone or more previously exposed substrates of the same run of thelithographic process.51. A method according to embodiment 49, wherein the post-exposuremetrology data comprises one or more measurements of the processparameter having been performed by an equivalent lithographic process onone or more previously exposed substrates of a previous run of thelithographic process.52. A method of manufacturing devices wherein device features are formedon a series of substrates by a patterning process, wherein correctionsfor a process parameter of the patterning process are determined byperforming the method of any of embodiments 1 to 51 and 56 to 64.53. A control system for a lithographic apparatus, the control systemcomprising: storage for receiving pre-exposure parameter data relatingto a property of a substrate and post-exposure metrology data comprisingone or more measurements of the process parameter having been performedon one or more previous substrates; and a processor operable to:

assign to the substrate, a group membership status from a one or moregroups, based on the pre-exposure parameter data; and

determine a correction for a process parameter based on the groupmembership status and the post-exposure metrology data.

54. A control system according to embodiment 53, wherein thepre-exposure parameter data comprises pre-exposure metrology data.

55. A control system according to embodiment 54, wherein thepre-exposure metrology data comprises alignment data describingacross-substrate grid distortions in the substrate plane.

56. A control system according to embodiment 54 or 55, wherein thepre-exposure metrology data comprises data describing the shape of thesubstrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate plane.

57. A control system according to any of embodiments 54 to 56, whereinthe pre-exposure metrology data comprises leveling data.

58. A control system according to any of embodiments 54 to 57, whereinthe processor is operable to assign the group membership status suchthat each substrate may be assigned a degree of membership to one ormore of the groups.

59. A control system according to embodiment 58, wherein the correctionis determined for the process parameter based on weighing of correctionsassociated with one or more groups based on the degrees of membership ofthat substrate to the one or more groups.60. A control system according to embodiment 59, wherein the degree ofmembership to a group is based on a classification score representativeof the measure of the presence of a fingerprint defining that group inthe pre-exposure metrology data.61. A control system according to embodiment 60, wherein the processoris operable to perform a principal component analysis on thepre-exposure metrology data to identify the presence of one or moreeigenfingerprints in the pre-exposure metrology data and theclassification score representative of the measure of the presence of acorresponding eigenfingerprint(s) in the pre-exposure metrology data.62. A control system according to any of embodiments 54 to 61, whereinthe processor is operable to determine for a particular group, asubstrate which is most representative of the group.63. A control system according to embodiment 62, wherein the processoris operable to update a correction for the process parametercorresponding to the group based on a measurement of the substrate whichis most representative of the group.64. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 57, whereinthe processor is operable to assign the group membership status suchthat each substrate is always assigned to a single group, or else isunclassified.65. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 64, whereinpre-exposure metrology data comprises data relating to a previouslyexposed layer on the substrate.66. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 64, whereinpre-exposure metrology data comprises data relating to a layer to beexposed.67. A control system according to embodiment 53, wherein thepre-exposure parameter data comprises context data relating to aparticular processing step.68. A control system according to embodiment 67, wherein the contextdata relates to a tool which has been used when processing thesubstrate.69. A control system according to embodiment 67 or 68, operable tocontrol the lithographic apparatus to perform a multiple patterningprocess having at least a first patterning step and a second patterningstep per layer.70. A control system according to embodiment 69, wherein the contextdata relates to a particular etch chamber that has been used to etch thesubstrate between the first patterning step and second patterning step,and each group corresponds to one of the etch chambers.71. A control system according to embodiment 70, wherein the correctioncomprises a second correction relative to a first correction, and thecontrol system is operable to control the lithographic apparatus to:

perform a first patterning step with a first correction;

determine the context applicable to the first patterning step;

assign the group membership status to the substrate based on the contextdetermination; and

determine the second correction for the second patterning step based onthe group membership status and the first correction.

72. A control system according to embodiment 71, the control systembeing operable to control the lithographic apparatus to, for each class:

obtain first process parameter data relating to a first measurement ofthe process parameter between the first patterning step and the secondpatterning step;

obtain second process parameter data relating to a second measurement ofthe process parameter subsequent to the second patterning step; and

calculate the second correction based on the difference between thefirst process parameter data and the second process parameter data.

73. A control system according to embodiment 72, operable such that thesecond correction is calculated to minimize the difference between thefirst process parameter data and the second process parameter data foreach group.

74. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 73, whereinthe process parameter comprises overlay.

75. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 74, whereinthe process parameter comprises one of critical dimension and edgeplacement error.

76. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 75, whereinthe correction determined for the process parameter based on the groupmembership status is also based on which chuck the substrate is mountedon during the lithographic process.

77. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 76, whereinthe processor is operable to use post-exposure measurements of thesubstrate to update the correction(s) for the process parametercorresponding to the group membership status assigned to the substrate.78. A control system according to any of embodiments 53 to 77, wherein,where the processor determines that the pre-exposure metrology data isof an insufficient fit to any of the one or more groups according to ametric, the processor is operable to update the one or more groups suchthat the pre-exposure metrology data can be classified.79. A control system according to embodiment 78, wherein updating of theone or more groups comprises maintaining the same number of groups, andupdating a data characteristic defining one or more of the groups, suchthat the pre-exposure metrology data for this substrate is a sufficientfit for at least one of the groups according to the metric.80. A control system according to embodiment 78, wherein the updating ofthe one or more groups comprises adding a new group defined by a datacharacteristic having an improved fit to the substrate relative to theother groups.81. A control system operable to control a suitable apparatus to performthe method of any of embodiments 1 to 52 and 86 to 94.82. A lithographic apparatus comprising the control system according toany of embodiments 43 to 81.83. A lithographic apparatus according to embodiment 82 comprising ameasurement system, a patterning system and a control system, themeasurement system being operable to perform pre-exposure metrology onthe substrate to obtain the pre-exposure metrology data, and thepatterning system being operable to form device features on thesubstrate in a patterning process using the correction for a processparameter of the patterning process.84. A computer program product containing one or more sequences ofmachine-readable instructions for implementing the steps of a method ofany of embodiments 1 to 52 and 86 to 94.85. A computer program product containing one or more sequences ofmachine-readable instructions for causing a processing device or systemof processing devices to implement the control system of any ofembodiments 53 to 81.86. A method of dynamically updating one or more groups and/orcorrections for a process parameter related to a lithographic process ona substrate, wherein a correction out of a plurality of corrections isapplied to the process parameter for each substrate based on a groupmembership status assigned to that substrate the method comprising:

obtaining post-exposure metrology data describing a performanceparameter of the substrate; and

dynamically updating the one or more of the groups and/or plurality ofcorrections based on the post-exposure metrology data.

87. A method according to embodiment 86, wherein the post-exposuremetrology data comprises overlay data.

88. A method according to embodiment 86 or 87, wherein the dynamicallyupdating step comprises dynamically updating corrections for a processparameter corresponding to a group based on a measurement of a substratewhich is determined to be most representative of the group.89. A method according to any of embodiments 86 to 88, wherein thedynamically updating step comprises updating the one or more correctionsof the plurality of corrections which correspond to the group membershipstatus of the substrate.90. A method according to any of embodiments 86 to 89, wherein thedynamically updating step comprises applying a weighted update to theplurality of corrections based on the group membership status of thesubstrate.91. A method according to any of embodiments 86 to 90, comprising thesteps of

obtaining pre-exposure metrology data describing a property of eachsubstrate;

assigning to the substrate, a group membership status from a one or moregroups, based on the pre-exposure metrology data; and

determining the correction for the process parameter based on the groupmembership status.

92. A method according to embodiment 91, wherein, where it is determinedthat the pre-exposure metrology data is of an insufficient fit to any ofthe one or more groups according to a metric, the dynamically updatingstep comprises dynamically updating the one or more groups such that thepre-exposure metrology data can be classified.93. A method according to embodiment 92, wherein the step of dynamicallyupdating the one or more groups comprises maintaining the same number ofgroups, and updating a data characteristic defining one or more of thegroups, such that the pre-exposure metrology data for this substrate isa sufficient fit for at least one of the groups according to the metric.94. A method according to embodiment 92, wherein the step of dynamicallyupdating the one or more groups comprises adding a new group defined bya data characteristic having an improved fit to the substrate relativeto the other groups.

In association with the hardware of the lithographic apparatus and thelithocell LC, an embodiment may include a computer program containingone or more sequences of machine-readable instructions for causing theprocessors of the lithographic manufacturing system to implement methodsof model mapping and control as described above. This computer programmay be executed for example in a separate computer system employed forthe image calculation/control process. Alternatively, the calculationsteps may be wholly or partly performed within a processor a metrologytool, and/or the control unit LACU and/or supervisory control system SCSof FIGS. 1 and 2. There may also be provided a data storage medium(e.g., semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk) having such acomputer program stored therein in non-transient form.

Although specific reference may have been made above to the use ofembodiments of the invention in the context of optical lithography, itwill be appreciated that embodiments of the invention may be used inother patterning applications, for example imprint lithography. Inimprint lithography, topography in a patterning device defines thepattern created on a substrate. The topography of the patterning devicemay be pressed into a layer of resist supplied to the substratewhereupon the resist is cured by applying electromagnetic radiation,heat, pressure or a combination thereof. The patterning device is movedout of the resist leaving a pattern in it after the resist is cured.

The foregoing description of the specific embodiments will so fullyreveal the general nature of the invention that others can, by applyingknowledge within the skill of the art, readily modify and/or adapt forvarious applications such specific embodiments, without undueexperimentation, without departing from the general concept of thepresent invention. Therefore, such adaptations and modifications areintended to be within the meaning and range of equivalents of thedisclosed embodiments, based on the teaching and guidance presentedherein. It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminologyherein is for the purpose of description by example, and not oflimitation, such that the terminology or phraseology of the presentspecification is to be interpreted by the skilled artisan in light ofthe teachings and guidance.

The breadth and scope of the present invention should not be limited byany of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be definedonly in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: obtainingpost-exposure metrology data describing a performance parameter of asubstrate, wherein a correction out of a plurality of corrections isapplied to a process parameter, related to a lithographic process forprocessing substrates, for each substrate of a plurality of substratesbased on a group membership status assigned to that substrate; anddynamically updating, based on the post-exposure metrology data, one ormore groups and/or corrections for the process parameter.
 2. The methodaccording to claim 1, wherein the post-exposure metrology data comprisesoverlay data.
 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein thedynamically updating comprises dynamically updating one or morecorrections for a process parameter corresponding to a group based on ameasurement of a substrate which is determined to be most representativeof the group.
 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein thedynamically updating comprises updating one or more corrections of theplurality of corrections which correspond to the group membership statusof the substrate.
 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein thedynamically updating comprises applying a weighted update to one or morecorrections of the plurality of corrections based on the groupmembership status of the substrate.
 6. The method according to claim 1,further comprising: obtaining pre-exposure metrology data describing aproperty of each substrate; assigning to the substrate, a groupmembership status from one or more groups, based on the pre-exposuremetrology data; and determining a correction for the process parameterbased on the group membership status.
 7. The method according to claim6, wherein it is determined that the pre-exposure metrology data is ofan insufficient fit to any of the one or more groups according to ametric, and the dynamically updating comprises dynamically updating theone or more groups such that the pre-exposure metrology data can beclassified.
 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the dynamicallyupdating the one or more groups comprises maintaining the same number ofgroups, and updating a data characteristic defining one or more of thegroups, such that the pre-exposure metrology data is a sufficient fitfor at least one of the groups according to the metric.
 9. The methodaccording to claim 7, wherein the dynamically updating the one or moregroups comprises adding a new group defined by a data characteristichaving an improved fit to one or more substrates relative to one or moreother groups.
 10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the groupmembership status is such that each substrate may be assigned a degreeof membership to one or more of the one or more groups.
 11. A computerprogram product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable mediumhaving instructions therein, the instructions, upon execution by acomputer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:obtain post-exposure metrology data describing a performance parameterof a substrate, wherein a correction out of a plurality of correctionsis applied to a process parameter, related to a lithographic process forprocessing substrates, for each substrate based on a group membershipstatus assigned to that substrate; and dynamically update, based on thepost-exposure metrology data, one or more groups and/or corrections forthe process parameter.
 12. The computer program product of claim 11,wherein the post-exposure metrology data comprises overlay data.
 13. Thecomputer program product of claim 11, wherein the instructionsconfigured to cause the computer system to dynamically update arefurther configured to cause the computer system to dynamically updateone or more corrections for a process parameter corresponding to a groupbased on a measurement of a substrate which is determined to be mostrepresentative of the group.
 14. The computer program product of claim11, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system todynamically update are further configured to cause the computer systemto update one or more corrections of the plurality of corrections whichcorrespond to the group membership status of the substrate.
 15. Thecomputer program product of claim 11, wherein the instructionsconfigured to cause the computer system to dynamically update arefurther configured to cause the computer system to apply a weightedupdate to one or more corrections of the plurality of corrections basedon the group membership status of the substrate.
 16. The computerprogram product of claim 11, wherein the instructions are furtherconfigured to cause the computer system to: obtain pre-exposuremetrology data describing a property of each substrate; assign to thesubstrate, a group membership status from one or more groups, based onthe pre-exposure metrology data; and determine a correction for theprocess parameter based on the group membership status.
 17. The computerprogram product of claim 11, wherein the instructions configured tocause the computer system to dynamically update are further configuredto cause the computer system to, responsive to a determination that thepre-exposure metrology data is of an insufficient fit to any of the oneor more groups according to a metric, dynamically update the one or moregroups such that the pre-exposure metrology data can be classified. 18.The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the instructionsconfigured to cause the computer system to dynamically update the one ormore groups are further configured to cause the computer system tomaintain the same number of groups, and update a data characteristicdefining one or more of the groups, such that the pre-exposure metrologydata is a sufficient fit for at least one of the groups according to themetric.
 19. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein theinstructions configured to cause the computer system to dynamicallyupdate the one or more groups are further configured to cause thecomputer system to add a new group defined by a data characteristichaving an improved fit to one or more substrates relative to one or moreother groups.
 20. The computer program product of claim 11, wherein thegroup membership status is such that each substrate may be assigned adegree of membership to one or more of the one or more groups.